The Supreme Court recently fined a Regional Trial Court judge for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop a Sheriff from enforcing the Writ of Execution by another Regional Trial Court judge. The SC ruled that the judge who issued the TRO clearly ignored the principle of judicial stability as the writ of execution sought to be restrained was issued by a co-equal court. The SC also held that the respondent judge should have refrained from acting on the petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for TRO because the RTC who issued the writ retains jurisdiction to rule on any question on the enforcement of the writ of execution. The Court further ruled that if the Sheriff committed any irregularity or exceeded his authority in the enforcement of the writ, the proper recourse was to file a motion, or an application for relief from the same court which issued the decision, not from any other court, or to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari.
Rectifying this error by eventually dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction is not a defense that respondent judge can use. "His lack of familiarity with the rules in interfering with the acts of a co-equal court undermines public confidence in the judiciary through his demonstrated incompetence," the Court stressed.
The SC En Banc found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.
No comments:
Post a Comment